Yeah, I totally get that, but somehow when Muslims do it, we’re not worried about those consequences: it’s a full-court press. And yes, it could play into their hands in terms of recruiting. But nonetheless we as a society have no hesitation in calling them home grown terrorists, and the law enforcement resources follow. That’s really the bottom line.
So to my thinking, if preemption is a part of the plan, it would seem to me that it should apply across the board merely for public safety reasons, setting aside the obvious bigotry in affording white terrorists the privilege of being called “crazy” while we call Islamic extremists “evil Muslim terrorists.” It’s really about applying resources equivalently to equivalent problems instead of focusing our efforts on people we consider to be “other” and letting the white Christian radicals slide.
MSNBC isn’t any better. Fucking profiler…Cliff VanZant or whatever his fucking name is…dude got noticed originally because of OJ trial and is now making a mint off of all these shootings as a commentator on any gun violence (which means he’s on weekly practically)…is also putting on the whitewash…saying the dude was purely mentally ill.
Nothing else to see here folks…no rightwing tendencies to target “imaginary enemies” that are out to ruin the country. No siree bob.
So, two mass shootings in about a week by mentally troubled men who were radicalized by the Internet and went on a kill spree. One gets called a “terrorist” by the MSM while the other is a just troubled drifter. As best I can tell, the biggest difference is that the one called a terrorist had the brains to find the stuff he was looking for on the Internet while the other was too goddamn dumb to type “stormfront” in his browser.
When a Muslim commits this sort of crime, the Right has a long list of things we could do to prevent it. We should deport them. We should put them in camps. We should go to war with (some predominantly Muslim country.)
When it’s a Right wing white guy who’s armed to the hilt, we all just shrug and say that nothing can be done.
It’s a tough deal to absorb the slate of FOX and Talk Radio without some effects. Before my Father passed away, my Parents and I were in contact with some other Veterans of Overlord, Korea and 'Nam.
One of Mom’s friends told her about a retired officer who was just sucked into FOX and–I guess the term to use is–“turned”.
This from a man who respected FDR, Eisenhower, and Kennedy. Who regularly listened to Cronkite, Smith, Brinkley.
I grieve for that man’s final years and those of so many others…their perspectives smashed by Rupert Murdoch’s Monster.
Yeah, it did - he was denied a permit. But as long as loopholes remain open, background checks are pointless. Just go to a gun show. Looking at you, NRA.
Under the “Family” category, Houser wrote that “no family safe in US environment.” The profile identified the user as a 59-year-old male residing in Phenix City.
Well he’s right about that. You can’t even go see a movie anymore without worrying about getting shot! Can’t send your kids to school without worrying about them getting shot. Can’t go to a community civics event or church without worrying about getting shot.
Correct, this punk is not a terrorist, he’s a murderer. I would also note that the poster you replied to left out Colin Ferguson (cited “black rage”…political), Charles Manson (wanted to start a Civil War), the DC Sniper (Muslim rantings), and others. None of those were “terror attacks”. Even the Fort Hood shooter said “Allah Akbar” before shooting, and it was not called a terror attack. It was not until later when they found out he had been communicating heavily with terrorists (Awlaki for one) that it was called a terror attack.
People love to whine, but the reality is that none of these are terror attacks. If a rapist is raping and killing women in a neighborhood, it’s not a terror attack, even though he is terrorizing women (more a hate crime).
Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder and James Comey agree, but I guarantee I will get replies telling me I don’t know what I am talking about (which would mean Lynch and the others don’t either…).
Yes, this is an example of a mentally ill nut who has access to firearms. THAT is the problem. His motivation? He wanted to kill himself, but also wanted headlines and “glory”. So he took some people with him.
He was denied a conceal carry permit, which isn’t the same thing as being denied the ability to purchase or own a firearm. I’m sure he still had full access to purchase anything he wanted, and enough ammunition to fuel a war.
You do not, in fact, know what you’re talking about. Here is the FBI site presenting the U.S. Code on what constitutes domestic terrorism. It’s unequivocal:
18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”: ...
“Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
Zero zip nada nothing about the perpetrator having to have been in contact with or instigated by some group. You can go to official site after official site and you won’t find that. You know what happened? You found one site that mentioned contact with groups in a parenthetical way and you misunderstood that to be a requirement. If you can prove I’m wrong, I’ll apologize, but you’ve gone on and on about this and I can find no proof that you’re right about it. Time to end the madness, buddy.
ETA: the guy tried to escape. He didn’t want to kill himself. Try reading more slowly, your comprehension will improve. Or not, I really don’t know.
